DHARMENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitionersoriginal applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has challenged a judgement dated 8.3.2011 passed in Original Application No.419/2009.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as under : 2.1. All the petitioners had joined the Railway administration as apprentice trainee. Upon completion of the training, they were engaged as Substitute Track Machine Organisation Khallasis (hereinafter referred to as "Substitute Khallasi") during the period between June 2006 to December 2006. As per the scheme framed by the railway administration under a circular dated 29.1.1991 they were also granted temporary status on completion of 120 days of service. This was followed by screening process held in August 2007. Under order dated 30.8.2007, the petitioners and other candidates who were found suitable were empanelled for absorption. Eventually on or around 6.11.2007, they were also regularised. 2.2. The Railway administration in the meantime had conducted regular selection to the said post of Khallasi by way of direct recruitment and also recruited large number of Khallasi on regular post in April 2007. The Railways circulated a draft seniority list for the cadre in question on 9.5.2008 inviting objections from interested persons. In such seniority list, the petitioners were shown to have been appointed on 6.11.2007 from where the seniority was reckoned. The case of the petitioners was that as per the Railway policy, upon regularisation their appointment had to be reckoned from the date they were granted temporary status. So seen, the petitioners would rank senior to direct recruits of April 2007. In the draft seniority list, they were shown juniors to such direct recruits. It is undisputed that despite such grievance of the petitioners, only one of them Rohit S. Tiwari raised objections about such draft seniority. The railway administration acting on such draft seniority list initiated the procedure for filling up promotional post of Technician GradeIII at which point the petitioners approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Hence the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Rao for the petitioners drew our attention to the scheme of the railway circulated under letter dated 29.1.1991 to contend that upon ultimate regularisation, the date of appointment of a substitute employee would be the date of grant of temporary status. He relied on paragraph (6) of the said circular which reads as under :